Back to the Future Trilogy (Robert Zemeckis, 1985-1990)

[whaleallright]

how is any of that "subversive"? (I mean that honestly, I'm seldom sure what people mean when they use that word.)

[flyonthewall2983]

For PG, family-friendly movies I would say they are all on the tip of being too lurid for such a rating now. Perhaps that would be a better word to define what I'm talking about, but maybe somewhere between the two is what I'm getting at. I doubt it would have hurt box office if the first one were rated PG-13, but it was also rather new at that point and maybe the MPAA were still trying to define for themselves what a truly PG-13 movie was.

[Monterey Jack]

The irony is, Disney passed on the first BTTF because of the quasi-incest attraction between mother and (future) son, while most other studios didn't want to make it because it was a teen movie that wasn't smutty enough for the era.

[domino harvey]

Can you believe both the original film and Purple Rose of Cairo, two high concept comedies that have withstood the test of time, lost the Best Screenplay Oscar to Witness of all things? I mean, that’s an okay movie and all, but who in the world thinks it merits the Oscar for its screenplay over either of those?

[Never Cursed]

Better that than Brazil - how did that film get nominated after a). bombing and b). the promotional war between Universal and Gilliam over the release cut?

[flyonthewall2983]

Alan Silvestri never got a nod for any of the BTTF films (and was only nominated once, for Forrest Gump). Huey Lewis at least got one for "The Power of Love".

[knives]

Can you believe both the original film and Purple Rose of Cairo, two high concept comedies that have withstood the test of time, lost the Best Screenplay Oscar to Witness of all things? I mean, that’s an okay movie and all, but who in the world thinks it merits the Oscar for its screenplay over either of those?

I

[hearthesilence]

Better that than Brazil - how did that film get nominated after a). bombing and b). the promotional war between Universal and Gilliam over the release cut?

I would've voted for Brazil, though if I could write in a different film, I would've preferred After Hours or Lost in America.

[domino harvey]

To each their own, but you guys are cuckoo bananas

[movielocke]

I was stunned to read above that Silvestri only has on Oscar nomination, especially in those weird awards years of the 90s when they had a whole separate Oscar category for comedy scoring, which was silvestris bread and butter in that time.

[Never Cursed]

At least Allen got the award next year for Hannah And Her Sisters

[beamish14]

Better that than Brazil - how did that film get nominated after a). bombing and b). the promotional war between Universal and Gilliam over the release cut?

Interesting to note that Terry Gilliam really goes out of his way to slam Back to the Future in his autobiography, and
throws a number of punches at Spielberg in particular (which is interesting, because Gilliam had first dibs on Who Framed
Roger Rabbit!)

That 1986 crop of nominated screenwriters is certainly an eclectic bunch, but Peter Greenaway vs. Spike Lee vs. Steven Sodbergh in 1990 might
give them a run for their money.

[flyonthewall2983]

He thinks Doc's breakfast machine in the opening credits was taken from one of the props in his movie, no?

[whaleallright]

Back to the Future is not the sort of film that wins Oscars. It doesn't take itself seriously, and it has a (delightful) crassness that put it out of the running. It also happens to be one of the most ingenious, precisely engineered screenplays ever. And it's almost universally (pun not intended) adored in a way that 99% of Oscar winners will never be.

I guess I don't think of the incest theme as being "subversive" because it doesn't seem to be put to any obviously deviant or critical use; it's just—again—kind of delightfully crass. But there's definitely a way that the film gets away with some yucky stuff because it's both so damn exalting and good-natured. But you could say that about a number of films of that era, including a few Spielbergs. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is incredibly randy for a PG film! (I remember feeling distinctly dirty seeing that movie at age 11.)

[flyonthewall2983]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would have swept Oscar night, then or now, just that the screenplay is far superior to the one that actually came away with gold. An all-too-common theme with awards shows generally.

[hearthesilence]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would have swept Oscar night, then or now, just that the screenplay is far superior to the one that actually came away with gold. An all-too-common theme with awards shows generally.

The well-meaning but contrived Witness didn't even deserve to get nominated, but honestly, most of the screenplay winners of the last 40 years were arguably terrible.

[flyonthewall2983]

And the BTTF script is studied in film classes to this day.

I guess I don't think of the incest theme as being "subversive" because it doesn't seem to be put to any obviously deviant or critical use; it's just—again—kind of delightfully crass. But there's definitely a way that the film gets away with some yucky stuff because it's both so damn exalting and good-natured. But you could say that about a number of films of that era, including a few Spielbergs. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is incredibly randy for a PG film! (I remember feeling distinctly dirty seeing that movie at age 11.)

My initial comment wasn't so directly aimed at the Oedipal stuff. It is more crass, and relatable as it mostly plays off of Marty being terrified at the seduction and in the car when he chides her for drinking and smoking. It's more in some of the little stuff, like the brief moment between the young Goldie Wilson and his boss, referring sarcastically to a "colored" mayor. It's slight but the other films Amblin were putting out simply didn't even go there.

[colinr0380]

He thinks Doc's breakfast machine in the opening credits was taken from one of the props in his movie, no?

There must have been something in the air at the time relating to breakfast-making Rube Goldberg devices, since Pee-Wee's Big Adventure also opens the same way!

I always thought there was no need for the animosity since all three scenes compliment each other well and each brings something new to the same basic idea. Back To The Future's automated machinery is part of that wonderful scene-setting long opening credits shot, which is very different from all the supposedly labour-saving devices fouling up in the breakfast scene in Brazil being the first indication of everything in that world making everything less convenient rather than more so! Of course in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure the breakfast making machine is taken to fairy tale absurd wish fulfilment lengths where everything works precisely and is timed to perfection!

(I suppose for a continuation of the idea we have to go to the Wallace & Gromit animations, particularly The Wrong Trousers!)

[whaleallright]

My initial comment wasn't so directly aimed at the Oedipal stuff. It is more crass, and relatable as it mostly plays off of Marty being terrified at the seduction and in the car when he chides her for drinking and smoking. It's more in some of the little stuff, like the brief moment between the young Goldie Wilson and his boss, referring sarcastically to a "colored" mayor. It's slight but the other films Amblin were putting out simply didn't even go there.

A brief nod to racism and civil rights in a 1985 film doesn't seem remotely "subversive" to me, esp. given how weak-sauce it is. If anything it seems one of several instances of casual presentism in the film -- an opportunity for 1985 audiences to nod and think, "How things have improved!" It's not as though the film provides much inkling that racism persists in Reagan's America.

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere on this forum: Dave Kehr has tried repeatedly to make an auteurist claim for this and other Zemeckis films being socially critical. But I don't buy it. First of all, the ending of BttF is not, contrary to Kehr, a critique of materialism. The film presents the McFlys' material riches as an earned reward for self-actualizing behaviors—and earlier, suggests that their relative poverty in 1985 v.1 was a result of George and Lorraine's having given up. In general the overt "message" of the film—that we have control over our destiny, and to change our fortunes we just need to believe in ourselves and take appropriate action—is entirely consonant with a Reaganite (or broadly "conservative") ideology. Not that this necessarily says anything about the (apparently diverging) political views of either Zemeckis or Gale. It's just one default ethos of Hollywood films. Second of all, even if the film were a critique of materialism, that wouldn't necessarily be subversive either. After all, plenty of Hollywood films love to have their cake (luxuriating in the presentation of materially rich milieux) and eat it too (moralistic criticism of the rich and powerful). Just think of any midcentury melodrama.

None of this seems to me a strike against the film, which to my mind rewards repeated viewings like almost no other. It's just that the film deserves kudos on its own terms, not ones invented by critics to make themselves feel better for liking a popcorn movie.

[hearthesilence]

...the ending of BttF is not, contrary to Kehr, a critique of materialism. The film presents the McFlys' material riches as an earned reward for self-actualizing behaviors—and earlier, suggests that their relative poverty in 1985 v.1 was a result of George and Lorraine's having given up. In general the overt "message" of the film...is entirely consonant with a Reaganite (or broadly "conservative") ideology.

If memory serves, I think Crispin Glover's main beef with the film (that is, before they tried to re-create him for the sequel after he refused to return) was the materialism of the ending.

Regardless, the movie is probably clearest reflection of Reagan's America in any studio film from that era, which is partly why I have a hard time fully embracing it. As Hoberman wrote in his book, it's the quintessential example of a Hollywood film that “explicates the fantasy of Reaganland” by dramatizing an idealized dialogue between the fifties and the eighties: “No less than Disneyland or Reaganland, Back to the Future proposes the comforting past to improve the present and even frame the radiant future.”

[swo17]

If memory serves, I think Crispin Glover's main beef with the film (that is, before they tried to re-create him for the sequel after he refused to return) was the materialism of the ending.

Yeah, he really didn't like the message of the family being rich at the end, and Bob Gale really didn't like him speaking out of turn and so pushed him out of the franchise. To hear Glover tell the story, Gale has repeatedly lied to spin him as difficult and greedy in the situation as a way to excuse the shady way they replaced him in the sequel

[flyonthewall2983]

I think even Zemeckis has harbored some regret about the ending. In the DVD audio track taken from the Q&A with him and Gale, he mentioned that every overseas review of the film talked about the materialism and that none of the ones in America did. There's even a slight disagreement between him and Gale concerning the truck, with Gale standing by the original intent of the ending a little more firmly. The alternate 1985 in the 2nd movie (not to mention the more apparent flaws in Marty's character, centering purely around an insecure masculinity the character might have had) feels partly a response to such criticisms.

[swo17]

It's worth noting that Glover considers himself on good terms now with Zemeckis, and that they've worked together since

[beamish14]

I think even Zemeckis has harbored some regret about the ending. In the DVD audio track taken from the Q&A with him and Gale, he mentioned that every overseas review of the film talked about the materialism and that none of the ones in America did. There's even a slight disagreement between him and Gale concerning the truck, with Gale standing by the original intent of the ending a little more firmly. The alternate 1985 in the 2nd movie (not to mention the more apparent flaws in Marty's character, centering purely around an insecure masculinity the character might have had) feels partly a response to such criticisms.

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but Gale's last film, Interstate 60, basically

SpoilerShow

reuses the truck ending in it too, right? When James Marsden
comes back to square one, it even plays with a bar of Alan Silvestri's music.

Really weird, but not unenjoyable film, as I recall. A bit like
Anthony Newley's Can Hieronymous Merkin Ever Forget... in terms of the sheer number of ideas and lack of ways to really execute them.


I don't know if it's necessarily just the absence of collaborating with Gale, but Zemeckis' post-Death Becomes Her films definitely lack the
ingenuity and entertainment value of the incredible run of films and episodic television he had from 1980 through 1992.

[colinr0380]

I think the truck ending is perfect, calling back nicely to the beginning of the film where Marty is reliant on the parent's (totalled by a sibling) family car despite having dreams of being able to provide for Jennifer and keep her in the style that she deserves (but is perhaps not entirely bothered by herself, if she had perhaps had been asked her opinion) through personal car ownership and for the moment of showing his parents looking on at Marty and Jennifer doing their own version of a love story in a very 1980s setting before letting the next generation get on with it. Though that immediately gets stymied by the return of Doc which makes the Back To The Future films (and this might just be because that aspect is one of the biggest themes in Rick & Morty, which seems to use BTTF as a jumping off point) all about the idea of the most average possible high school young love story being almost wrecked (certainly made more complicated) by sci-fi shenanigans! I also think that there is probably a very intentional contrast where the 1950s period cars (that are as much if not more fetishised in the series as the truck) to go and make out in turn into a bigger, even more ostentatious modern version of the same concept!

I like that even the truck itself pays off in the sequels, with the decision of whether to drag race or not (i.e. staying wedded to 1950s modes of dangerous behaviour!) causes the crash into the limousine at the crossing (i.e. running headlong into 80s capital!) taking place in the truck and in some ways caused by trying to show it off to the guys when really a vehicle should be more properly about facilitating the girlfriend within it! (Something only underlined by the final scene of the entire trilogy immediately following that, with the Doc and Clara using their steampunk vehicle as a kind of time and space-trekking family RV!)

I suppose we could also extend that idea to the DeLorean being the ultimate car fetish object but an incredibly impractical one that breaks down or needs extensive specialised fuel after every single journey! The ultimate thrill being when it actually works, when it provides an experience far better than your average car ever could, but with the downside that it is nowhere near as reliable! Definitely not practical just for travelling to make out point in!